tv U.N. Ambassador Says U.S. Voice Remains Strong Around Globe CSPAN June 28, 2017 8:03pm-11:08pm EDT
since then there has been more criticism. he wants to make the planet great again. he says that by making reference to the fact that donald trump decided to withdraw the u.s. from the paris climate agreement. say,s a trolling, as they something that did not go down well in the white house. it might be awkward. it would be the third meeting between the two because they are currently repairing at the g 20 summits in germany next month. -- now to the house foreign affairs committee or u.n. ambassador nikki haley talked about u.s. policy towards the united nations and the u.s. role in places like north korea, syria and israel. california congressman ed royce chairs the committee. this is three hours.
she has castigated iran and hezbollah for their role in sowing instability across the middle east. ambassador haley has made it crystal clear that the un's human rights council's record of protecting dictators cannot stand. indeed, as ambassador haley as declared, the united states' our at the u.n. is to show strength and our voice and have the back of our allies. i think that is well said. the united nations is charged with the ambitious mission to maintain international peace and security and to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems. but unfortunately the organization all too often falls short. u.n. organizations continuously debate issues, but too often take no meaningful off --
action. u.n. organizations like the human rights council give dictators and give human rights violators a platform to attack israel. in addition to calling for the u.n. to end its bias against crystalshe has made clear that the international body can no longer be used to promote anti-semitism. i was pleased to see ambassador haley recognized that human rights and conflict are directly connected, in her words. thinky standpoint, i regimes that do not respect the citizens over which they hold power and visitors like otto warmbier. they won't respect their neighbors. won't respect international agreements. given its terrible human rights record, it is no surprise that north korea is determined to
deploy international ballistic weapons technology. the united nations has passed good security council resolutions on north korea, spurred by u.s. legislation that we passed in this committee. u.n. peace keeping has played a critical role over the years in advancing u.s. interests and should be prioritized in accordance with u.s. law. the recent deaths of peace keepers in south sudan and in mali remind us of the dangers they face. but peace keeping would find more support if failing
missions, some decades old, were closed and the horrendous sexual abuses tackled head on. this committee has pushed to improve the u.n.'s transparency and accountability, advancing protections of whistle blowers and bringing u.n. peace keepers that are sexual predators to the bar of justice. ambassador haley, we look forward to how we can support you working to improve transparency and accountability. this committee stands ready to assist in your difficult tasks ahead. i now turn to the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman and madam ambassador. welcome to the foreign affairs committee. i've watched you in the short months that you've been ambassador. i hope you're enjoying my hometown of new york, best place in the world. and i've watched you with admiration in terms of how you've been conducting yourself.
as i said to you in the room before we started, we pride ourselves on this committee of being the most bipartisan committee in the congress. the chairman and i have worked very hard to do that. when there are disagreements, there are disagreements. but we all share the same goal. of course, the united states is the world's biggest super power. we believe that we have a lot to offer the world and want to continue to work with all the countries of the world. i was disappointed in the budget. i said this to secretary tillerson as well. it cuts our support for key peace keeping efforts in the united nations by nearly 40%. peace keeping missions help people who have been driven from their homes by atrocities in south sudan. u.n. peacekeepers are protecting more than a quarter million civilians. missions are scheduled to close soon because they've been so
effective in building stability and security. we are traditionally invested a little more than the minimum required in peace keeping. and that's what i think an indispensable power should do. which is what we have done. it is to show the world that we help country that wants to prosperous lives. american personnel are not deployed. these initiatives help prevent crises and so we don't have to intervene. they do it for eight times less than it would cost to send an american soldier. burden sharing, i know there has been talk about burden sharing. i believe these efforts are the definition of burden sharing. the administration's also seeking to completely eliminate american support for the u.n. development program for disaster relief coordination for the u.n. women, for the u.n. population fund, for unicef. support for children living in the most -- 100% reduction, i think that needs to be changed. the u.n. has its problems, no
one disputes that. we talked a little while about some of them. i personally think the way israel is blamed and bullied by u.n. members is terrible. as i told you before, the so-called human rights council has the worst human rights abusers on that council. it is the epitome of gall or chutzpa to think they can sit and look at anybody in judgment of anybody given the fact that they have the most abysmal human rights records in the world. it almost makes it a little bit like alice in wonderland. but i do think american leadership is urgently needed to help shape security council resolutions and other initiatives. but walking away from our commitments isn't the right way to effect the reform that we all want to see. we're willing to cede the ground
to whomever steps into our place. i can't imagine a more harmful course. if we want our values and our priorities to be the priorities of other countries, then withdrawing from multilateral involvement is a grave consideration. i'm glad that congress will have the last word on the budget issues. i remain deeply concerned about the number of other areas where american foreign policy is going off course and how that affected s our ability to work with other governments through the u.n. i hope your testimony will address some of these problems. let me say as i told you before i look forward to working with you. you have approached this job with a zest and verve that's been very refreshing. we will from time to time have policy differences but i think
we all stand for the same thing, obviously. and that is what we tried to do in the foreign relations committee. so, welcome. i look forward to your testimony and look forward to your tenure as u.n. ambassador. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. ingel. i now yield to the gentleman from south carolina to introduce our witness today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure for me to introduce my friend, ambassador nikki haley, to my colleagues. a south carolina native, ambassador haley graduated from my alma mater, the 2016 national football champion clemson tigers. i'm shameless, guys, shameless. in 2004, she became the first indian-american to hold south carolina public office when she won a seat in the south carolina state house where i served with her for six years. in 2010 she was elected the first female as well as the first minority governor of south carolina.
in her tenure as governor of south carolina, ambassador haley brought investment and jobs from all over the world. south carolina now holds more than 1200 operations of international firm which is employ more than 131,000. a lot of this investment was directly tied to governor haley's efforts. especially in businesses in europe and asia. on november 22, 2016, the president-elect picked her to become the united states ambassador to the united nation nations where she continues to strongly represent american interests on the world stage. ambassador haley, welcome to congress and we look forward to your testimony. i yield back. >> welcome, ambassador. without objection, the ambassador's full prepared statements will be made a part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit any statements or weston's or any extraneous -- or questions or any extraneous material. i would ask you if you could summarize your remarks. ambassador haley: thank you very much.
to my friend jeff, go tigers, and thank you for that introduction. chairman royce, ranking member ingel and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss advancing u.s. interests at the united nations. five months and three days ago i was sworn in as u.s. ambassador to the united nations. i came into this position at a time when many americans felt a deep sense of betrayal at the u.n. in the wake of the passage of resolution 23-34. at my confirmation hearing i made the following promise -- if i am privileged to be the u.s. ambassador, i will never sit passively while america's interests and friends are run down at the u.n. five months later i can say that i haven't been quiet on the issues important to the united states and i can say this -- i have kept my promise. our friends and our rivals know that america has once again found its voice at the united nations.
the international community is now very clear about what the u.s. is for and what the u.s. is against. it wasn't long after my confirmation that my promise was put to the test. in early april, the syrian regime dropped chemical weapons on syrian children. we forced the security council to hold an open emergency session, which some member states didn't want. we drew a red line. if the u.n. would not act collectively, the united states would act alone. and we did. we brought new accountability to the north korean regime. when north korea continued its illegal missile tests, we brought all the nations of the security council together including china and russia to impose new sanctions. even as we focus on north korea's nuclear and missile threat, we also continue to highlight the barbaric human rights violations the regime is committing. otto warmbier's death brought home to americans the brutality
that north koreans have known for decades. the same clear voice we've used to take on our adversaries, we've also used to support america's values and america's friends. thanks to u.s. leadership, human rights are at the forefront of the u.n. agenda. for the first time ever during the u.s. presidency of the security council, we convened a meeting dedicated solely to the protection of human rights and their relationship to conflict. we made the case that human rights violations and conflict are directly related. history has played out. when governments don't respect the rights and voices of the people, conflict will soon follow. we've also called out the u.n. human rights council for legitimizing human rights violators at the expense of their victims. we forced the withdrawal of a
-- we refuse to tolerate well the u.n.'s most disreputable and dangerous habits -- obsessively bashing israel. we forced the withdrawal of a bias for work and we steered the debate on the middle east away from unfairly targeting israel and towards the true threats in the region such as ironic and hamas. -- iran and hamas. peacekeeping is one of the most important things the u.n. does. we're reviewing every one of the peace keeping missions with an eye toward ensuring that we have clear and achievable mandates. we're also working to ensure that troops are ready, professional and committed to the safety of civilians on the ground.
troops in the u.n. peace keeping mission in the democratic republican of the congo have long faced charges of sexual abuse and other serious misconduct. we inserted clear instructions into the mission's most recent mandate to enforce performance standards for troops. there is no place in any u.n. peace keeping mission for predatory and abusive troops. our peace keeping reforms are aimed at producing more effective missions for vulnerable citizens. we will hold governments accountable to their responsibility to protect their own citizens while also cutting down waste and inefficiency. we've adapted the mission in haiti to changing conditions on the ground and our target -- are on target to save at least $150 million for the year. we will continue our reform efforts when we take up the peace keeping mission renewal this month in darfur, sudan. our efforts will hold the government accountable to improve humanitarian access. mr. chairman, thank you for this
opportunity to highlight our efforts to reassert u.s. leadership at the united nations. it's hard to believe it's only been five months since i moved my family to new york to begin this exciting and challenging new chapter. i look forward to more progress in the months ahead and i welcome your questions. thank you. >> thank you, ambassador haley. let me start with this point. this week the white house issued a firm statement, a warning to syria after it was picked up that assad -- his regime was preparing potentially for another chemical weapons attack. you amplified that message yourself. have we seen assad's regime take any steps in response to that warning? ambassador haley: well, i can tell you that due to the president's actions, we did not see an incident. what we did see before was all of the same activity that we had seen prior for the april 4 chemical weapons attack.
so i think that by the president calling out assad, i think by us continuing to remind iran and russia that while they choose to back assad, that this was something we were not going to put up with. so i would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children. >> let me ask you a question on the u.n. security council resolutions that were passed with respect to north korea. we're a few years away from north korea having an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that can reach the u.s. and we have this question about enforcement. we have a second bill in addition to the sanctions bill which i and mr. engel passed formerly, and it was signed into law. we have a second bill to try to close any additional loopholes. specifically what we're trying to do is to stop the use of forced labor by north korea
where they'll have workers sent to the middle east and other countries. and instead of the workers being paid, the money goes right back into the bank account of the north korean regime and is used on its nuclear weapons program. so we're trying to cut off the at hard currency that comes out of beijing that subsidizes the regime even with the sanctions that the security council has passed. can you tell us, if we had enforcement, what would be the impact on north korea's regime and their ability to move forward with this nuclear weapons program? ambassador haley: the more pressure we put on north korea, the better. you are dealing with a paranoid leader who thinks that we are trying to assassinate him, who thinks we are trying to do regime change, who keeps his public in the dark, only hearing what he wants them to hear.
and what we need to remember is that he is building a nuclear program and you are more optimistic saying it is multiple years before an icbm comes forward. i think it's going to happen sooner because they are on target to do that. and they continue to use their people for those violations. so i would welcome any sort of pressure that you could put forward to slow down that process of nuclear development. >> i think this is so critical. secretary mattis has said that north korea is the number one threat from his standpoint. i think the key also is to get the senate to take action now. and i would suggest immediately. that bill has been over there for some time. i also wanted to ask you about the human rights commission and how your efforts to sort of change this system to competitive voting rather than regional rotation in order to make sure that the human rights
council ditches some of its old procedures and ditches the anti-israel focus. i mean, we had 70 resolutions against israel and very few to touch on iran or other human rights abusers around the planet. how is that going? you sat down with many europeans when you traveled over there to make this pitch to those governments. can you give us an update on that? ambassador haley: yes. and i can give you an example that will bring it very close to home. we have seen terrible things happening in venezuela. and we continue to be very, very concerned. and so we brought up an emergency session in the security council for venezuela. and my colleagues were not appreciative of that because they said it wasn't a peace and security issue and that it needed to be heard at the human rights council. the problem is the human rights council never heard anything or
condemned venezuela, because venezuela sits on the council along with cuba and saudi arabia and china. and the list goes on. i didn't want to send a statement from new york. i thought it was important that i went in person. i explained to them this can't be a place bad actors go to to protect themselves and point fingers at others. i told them the agenda item seven effect on israel, those israel's -- those issues could goto agenda item four. many of them agreed that it discredited the human rights council. i do think we were heard and i do hope there's a change. >> thank you. my time is expired. i go to mr. elliot engel of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to piggy back on the question about the human rights commission. first of all, let me say madame ambassador that i heard your speech and i thought it was a very fine speech. what so aggravates me about the u.n. human rights council is that they have a nerve as i said
before to try to sit in judgment of anybody else. people should be investigating them for the worst human rights abuses, and they do it to their own people as well. so the u.n. human rights council has targeted israel ever since its creation. they have agenda item seven. it's a permanent agenda item targeting israel. it's the only country-specific agenda item at the council. obviously it's ridiculous and unfair. the membership of the council is an embarrassment to the u.n. some of the members engage in the worst abuses. with all the problems of the council, i do recognize that because of u.s. leadership, the council has begun to shift its scrutiny to some of the world's worst human rights violators. according to the american jewish community institute, u.s. participation has improved the council's treatment of israel to some degree and shifted the focus to human rights violations in north korea, iran and syria.
at the same time according to u.n. watch, the 2006-2009 u.s. boycott of the council did nothing to prevent the council from continuing to cause damage. so i have a couple of questions about this. what steps do you propose taking to remove agenda item seven from the council's agenda and reform criteria for membership of the council? and i abhor conferring legitimacy on any entity which discriminates against israel or is so one sided. but i worry if the u.s. withdrew from the council things could actually get worse. so i would like you to comment on that, too. what would be the impact of u.s. priorities including protection of israel if the u.s. were to withdraw from the u.n. human rights council. ambassador haley: thank you. that is my dilemma, which is, are we better off being on the human rights council with all of these bad actors where it's very
hard to give the council any credit, or do we do our own human rights fights outside the council. that's what remains to be seen. the reason i went there was i thought it was important. in reference to agenda item seven, when i met with the like minded members of the council, they admitted that agenda item seven was embarrassing. they admitted that it discredited the council. they admitted that they thought it needed to come off. what we found is there are three main groups that continue to use agenda item seven. it's the egyptians, it's the saudis and it's pakistan. those are the three. everyone else has shifted to agenda item four. we actually think that the palestinians would be okay if we shifted to item four if we talked to those three groups. so that is my focus now is trying to talk to those three groups to see how we can shift them off of agenda item seven. the truth is if somebody wants to bring israel up for a violation, that can happen under
agenda item four. but if you don't have an agenda for north korea, you don't have it for syria, you don't have it for venezuela, it really is nothing more than abusive to have it on israel, especially with all the threats in the world. and so i think they took this seriously. i am continuing to have meetings on this. we met with commissioner zade and told him that we needed his help on this front when it came to that. he agreed and he felt like it was doable. so it's going to take a full court press, and i'm going to need all of you to help in terms of pushing that narrative that we really want to do that. and i think they don't want us to leave the human rights council. and so we have -- there has got to be competitive elections. we have got to make sure it is not already decided who is going to be on there, and that we have to get the general assembly to not vote for these bad actors. it happened last time russia ran, and russia lost. that was a huge moment, because
russia -- typically the p5 always win an election, but that was due to what they were doing with ukraine. there is a possibility of change. we just have to be very aggressive about doing that. >> thank you, my time is almost up, but i want to reiterate some of the things i said before. i get just as angry at the u.n. as anybody when you think they take us for granted, but i don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face. united states presidents -- present at the u.n. is very important, and i worry about the president's proposed budget cuts to u.n. funding, and i wish that the administration would take another look at that. nine of your predecessors signed onto a letter in support of the continued payment of u.s. voluntary contributions to the u.n., saying the cuts weaken our hand, alienate allies, and cost us more over the long run. i wonder if you could quickly
comment on that. ambassador haley: there is -- my job was to go in and see if i could final value in the u.n. that was the directive all of you gave me. that was the directive the president gave me. there are a lot of place that is the u.n. is very effective. there's a lot of fat around the edges and some abuses that happen at the u.n. but i do think it's very important that we make the most of it. and i will tell you that from the president's budget, keep in mind that that was more of making a point. it was making a point that he wanted to strengthen the military, and it was putting the united nations on notice. and it worked. and i have used that as leverage. because now we're seeing a lot of the other countries come forward and say, yes, we should do reform. when it comes to peace keeping reform, they have worked with us on every single renewal to change it, to make it smarter. to make it better work for the people. when it comes to management reform, they're working with us on changing it. so i really do think the message was effective.
and my hope is that i can be your conduit in terms of working from the president's budget to where y'all have to make some decisions to help you know what exactly i think is important in order for us to have a strong voice at the u.n. >> thank you. ambassador haley: thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. madam ambassador, you've done an admirable job in your first few months and have demonstrated strong leadership at the u.n. i also want to commend you for your forceful words against the maduro regime, thank you. speaking out so strongly for the the support of the venezuelan people. things have gotten, they have taken a turn for the worse as you know. there was a helicopter attack targeting the supreme court by maduro and maduro surrounded the national assembly. so the violence is escalating. and thank you to mr. deutsch for
bringing up venezuela with the secretary-general yesterday. what actions are you considering to hold maduro accountable at the u.n.? are you considering security council actions or sanctions? i know it's a difficult environment for you. how can we put pressure so that maduro at least allows humanitarian assistance to help the people? and let me just quickly touch on two other topics, madam ambassador. i've introduced legislation over the years that exposes problems and offers solutions on the unruh particularly the incitement issues, the ties to hamas from its employees, and the fact that u.s. taxpayer dollars are used to support this violence. was extendedte lamentably through june 2020. three more years of this is unacceptable. how can we shift to the u.n.
commissioner of refugees because three more years of this is unacceptable? and lastly, the human rights council is in the process of creating a blacklist, a database for supporters of bds, to use to target israel's interests. where does this database effort stand right now, and what are we doing to kill this effort and prevent it from doing harm to israel? thank you, madam ambassador. ambassador haley: thank you. first on venezuela, because the human rights council would not hear the issue on venezuela, we had the emergency security council meeting in new york. but then when i went to geneva, we had a hearing, or we had a meeting outside of that to just discuss venezuela issues to bring it home to the human rights council that they needed to do this. the region very much didn't want us to talk about it and said that this would make things worse. but as you saw with the oas, when they attempted to talk about it, venezuela got out of the oas. and then recently the oas met
again, and they were unable to do anything. ambassador haley: and wheat -- rep. ros-lehtinen: and we did not have the votes. ambassador haley: we need to keep the pressure on maduro. there are signs he's now going to start using his military and use weapons. rep. ros-lehtinen: he's been doing that. ambassador haley: anything you see on tv, it is so much worse. it is a terrible situation. so as much pressure as we can continue to put on maduro that we're watching. rep. ros-lehtinen: almost 80 people dead, thousands arrested, thousands in jail. and he's acting with impunity. ambassador haley: they just want to be heard. they just want to be heard. and it goes back to any government that doesn't listen and take care of their people, conflict will follow. it is a direct correlation. rep. ros-lehtinen: so please act please keep acting on behalf of , the people. ambassador haley: we will continue to do that. rep. ros-lehtinen: on onra, i actually went and visited a camp when i went to israel and the palestinian area. i asked about the books and what we were seeing. they think they have gotten it down.
they said the problem comes into the culture versus what we think is incitement. they are continuing to work on it. we are continuing to pressure -- rep. ros-lehtinen: bologna. ambassador haley: we'll continue to do that. i do think we need to look at unra in a way that we expect more of them and put pressure on them so that we can get the changes we need to have, changes in what they consider to be a refugee, changes in any textbooks on incitement, changes in hamas members teaching in the schools. there is work. i will say there's also good that comes out of unra. what they do with the schools and the health care, you do see value in it, but i think we just need to continue to pressure them on the things we want to see things. rep. ros-lehtinen: thank you, and on bds? ambassador haley: they are now trying to get assessed contributions in the u.n. we are fighting that back desperately. bds, it's something that i spoke about in geneva and said it was a problem. i'm very concerned.
i'm very concerned that we may not be able to defeat this. but we are trying extremely hard to show that this is something that cannot happen. as governor in south carolina, we were the first state to fight it off. i know how dangerous and abusive this would be. and so we'll continue fighting this the whole way through. rep. ros-lehtinen: thank you. keep kicking butt, thank you. >> brad sherman of california. >> pattern ambassador, thank you for your work on behalf of the people of south sudan, your briefing of april 25. i hope you're able to achieve our objectives there. i also want to thank you and join with my colleagues in thanking you for your efforts to refute and to halt the u.n.'s obsessive tendencies with unjustified attacks on israel. i hope that you're pushing inside the administration to get them to fill the empty boxes on the organization chart. now rex tillerson has praised
the people who are filling the acting positions, acting assistant secretary, acting undersecretary. my wife's been with the state department for 20 years. all of her -- you can't get policy direction from somebody who's got the big word temporary on their door. until, until we get those positions filled with people that reflect where the administration want to go, we don't have foreign policy in the hundreds of areas that you and the secretary of state can't personally address. the world is better when the united states is involved. we're involved in the united nations. we're not necessarily going to be paying our dues or our share of peace keeping. is it easier or harder for you to do your job if we don't pay our dues? ambassador haley: ok thank you
, for that. yes, we will continue to work on south sudan. i'll be visiting there in the fall to deal with it head on. israel, i will continue to call them out every time that happens. i hear you on the state department and what you told secretary tillerson. we have worked really hard too -- really hard to fill the roles on u.s.-u.n. and are almost there. in terms of the peacekeeping budget -- rep. sherman: peacekeeping and -- ambassador haley: peacekeeping and -- rep. sherman: my question was we have our general u.n. dues, the line item for that and the president's proposed budget cut 27%, peace keeping 37%. ambassador haley: right. rep. sherman: does that diminish your ability to do your job or does it make your job easier? ambassador haley: no, i am -- so my job has worked well because i've used that as leverage. with every single renewal, what we did was we looked at the political solution. we looked, is it working, is it actually helping the people on the ground? what they have done in the past
is challenged areas, they would just send more troops to it. if the troops aren't trained, and the troops don't have equipment, it's not going to be effective. what we have now done is changed the mandates to make sure they are smarter. rep. sherman: i'm going to cut you off there. ambassador haley: let me just tell you this. we just negotiated the peace keeping budget last week. i was so proud of my team because we cut it by half a billion dollars. that was with the support of everyone -- rep. sherman: now that it is a budget you like, should we contribute our alotted share? ambassador haley: i think you can comfortably go to 25% and know that we will be ok. rep. sherman: ok. russia. we have a bill that passed the senate to impose sanctions on russia, iran, the guidance review provisions. the only way we got sanctions on iran was to overcome efforts of the last two administrations who wanted either no sanctions or
wanted the administration to be able to justway just wave a wand and say, we don't like them, so we're not going to do it. if the administration lobbying to change the congressional review provisions for the russia sanctions bill? ambassador haley: i am not aware that they are lobbying for anything. ok. ambassador haley: they also renewed recently the sanctions on russia in reference to ukraine. those were renewed last week. rep. sherman: other administration officials have testified they haven't spoken with the president regarding russian interference in last year's election. have you talked to the president about that? ambassador haley: i've not talked to the president about that. and look, i think the best thing that can happen is for this investigation to play out, play out quickly. i have no reason to think there was any any sort of involvement , between the president and russia. rep. sherman: i am going to try to move onto one last question. the un's security council resolution 2231 bans or deters
iran from testing ballistic missiles. is the security council incapable of addressing iran's violations of that resolution? ambassador haley: well we're , going to push hard to address it. they have tested. they have launched ballistic missiles. and now we are seeing that they are sending off weapons and things to bad actors. yes, we have to continue to address that. the problem is russia will always veto it. rep. sherman: thank you. >> we go now to chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much. good morning. ambassador, thank you for your strong and effective leadership. it's principled. i know talking to many of the diplomats in the new york how respected you are. you have absolutely made a mark. you are deeply respected, so thank you for that leadership. there's no better friend or diplomat or otherwise for israel. we thank you for that as well.
yesterday rex tillerson, secretary of state rightly , designated china as a tier three country, the chinese government, the worst violator for sex and labor trafficking. i want to thank you, the administration, for making that bold and i think long-missed call. for years we have been asking china whether it be sex trafficking, somewhat attributable if not largely attributable to the missing girls, 62 million missing girls. because of sex collection. there's no parallel in the world. in labor trafficking, whether it be north korea or the problems of just exploiting workers, through what was thought to be a reform of the system which did not happen thank you for that , designation. it is very well accepted. let me ask you about the nobel peace prize winner who has terminal cancer.
he is still in china, out of prison we are told, getting medical care. i know the administration has already asked through our ambassador that he be allowed to come here along with his wife who has suffered to get treatment. whatever you can do and i know you have a good working relationship even though i'm sure you butt heads occasionally with the chinese ambassador, let him come and let him come now, please. so i would ask you for that. let me ask you too on the special envoy for combatting anti-semitism. that post has not been filled. i'm the one who offered the amendment in the year 2004 to establish it. it remains unfulfilled. and rightly so, the american-jewish groups are very , very upset by that omission. fill it. put the people in there. don't double hat it. i would ask respectively. -- respectfully. there is so much of a rise in anti-semitism, and it's needed now.
and that person, whoever he or she may be can walk point on , trying to stop this terrible hate that is on the rise around the world. let me also just say thank you. karen bass and i were in south sudan just a few weeks ago. i was there earlier in the -- earlier in august. we met with someone. the change is remarkable. they were a garrison military u.n. deployment that sat and did nothing wednesday -- the tehran compound was attacked, including a woman from my own district who was sexually abused. they just sat there, did nothing. we now, through your great leadership, have a very effective, much more robust mandate. so i want to thank you for that leadership. i know you worked hard on that. on famine -- and you might want to speak to this -- we're concerned, both karen bass and i were in refugee camp's, two of them, and one ibd camp. there are shortages, particularly in uganda. there was a 50% cut in food.
and i know there's some $990 million that has been appropriated in the appropriations bill. our hope is that it does not carry over into next year. it needs to be spent now. most of the people in the camps are women or children. they are in desperate need of food security and food aide. i know we are running out of time, but last year we had three of our committees held a hearing on enlisted transfers to rogue states of north korea and iran. the world intellectual property organization and its director general call for this. gurri retaliated against the whistleblowers which spoke of wrongdoing, and today we've people who have lost their jobs at the u.n. because they did the right thing. please, this is an injustice, it has to be corrected. i ask for your personal intervention on that. ambassador haley: thank you. so in reference to the person
being held in china, letting them go, we are all on it at different levels of the administration. that is moving. in terms of the envoy for anti-semitism, we welcome all the help that we can get because i think -- i agree with you on that. in terms of south sudan, we are seeing baby step progress in that area, but it's baby step. but we continue to work on that. like i said, i'll be visiting in the fall to speak with the president myself on behalf of the united states to see if we can put some pressure there. also, know that south sudan has fallen off the famine list, but it is still food insecure. it is still very volatile. it's still a vulnerable spot. famine is on our radar across the board in all four of the regions that we need to be looking at. and so we're watching that closely and working on that. and we continue to work with other groups with issues that,,
so please feel free to contact me any time. >> greg meeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam ambassador, i am actually stunned at the response you just give back at the response you have never spoken to the president of the united states about russia's involvement in our democracy. never talked to the president about united states, and we've got to deal with russia, and the biggest question that we've had recently is russia's involvement and what they've done to our democracy. for you not to have had a conversation with the president of the united states about that involvement is absolutely shocking to me. secondly, you mentioned the word betrayal in your opening statement, but i want to you know that that's an appropriate word to describe what i'm hearing from my constituents and my fellow americans and our allies all across -- at home and abroad. they feel a sense of betrayal because of the way that the trump administration has diminished america's leadership and global standing.
our allies have expressed their sense of betrayal and mixed messages coming from the president. and i believe this budget proposal is a betrayal of our nation's interests. so while you mention a sense of betrayal regarding a single u.n. resolution, i hope you recognize the deep sense of betrayal that many americans are feeling right now as the administration pursues a path of isolation. recent polling shows that america's global image has been significantly hurt by president trump. the one exception, russia. they have confidence in him. and i know that this matters when it comes to diplomacy and our ability to successfully engage internationally. you mentioned earlier about human rights, yet when the president went to saudi arabia, there was no mention of human rights. when he went to egypt, there was no mention of human rights.
when he met with the chinese, there was no mention of human rights. when he had the russians in his office giving away national secrets, there was no mention of human rights. so i am concerned about -- yet when he went to europe where our allies are, he was critical of them and criticized them. so it seems to me that the actions of the president of the united states will make your job a very difficult job because you're supposed to be working with everyone, and with the decrease in confidence in the united states, it seems to me that that would complicate your job to advance our national interests. and then it seems as though we're not sure when you say one thing, and the president comes back, and he says something else. so how do you handle situations in which the white house contradicts or overrides something you have publicly said
or the secretary of state has publicly said with regard to u.s. policy? how is it and who determines what that u.s. policy is especially with the pew polls that's going on seems as though we've lost a lot of our leadership around the the world. ambassador haley: thank you, mr. meeks, and i want to know what coffee you're drinking this morning because i need to start drinking that. first of all, let's go through because i want to answer all of these. these are very important questions. first of all with russia, my conversations with the president are very much -- you've seen me bash russia on ukraine, you've seen me bash russia on syria, you've seen me call out russia if we see any sort of wrongdoings by russia, and yes, i do think russia meddled in our elections, and yes, i have said that to the president. so having said that, i haven't asked the president any further questions because i just -- it's not something that's on my radar. i don't get asked about any of those things at the united nations, so i'm very focused on
my work in new york, and that has never come up once. there's no issues with russia that have come up once by any member state in the u.n., and so that's the focus. u.s. leadership in our global standing. mr. meeks, we have really put a strong voice of the u.s. at the u.n. i mean, they know we're back, they know we're strong, and i will tell you when the action took place to strike syria, the number of ambassadors that came to me and said it's so good to see the u.s. leading again. very -- rep. meeks: are we leading? we pulled out of the paris agreement. ambassador haley: i am going down your list. rep. meeks: i'm talking about how we are pulling out. indicated that he wants to do bilateral, no multilateral agreements. that he has no confidence in multilateral. ambassador haley: he supports me at the u.n. and he supports what i'm doing
at the u.n. when you talk about human rights, i was the first person to ever bring up human rights at the security council. i went to geneva to talk to hum -- human rights. i've been on it in terms of venezuela, what's happening in south sudan, all of that. the president supports me on that. when you talk about different views and those things that are happening, we're on the same team. for me to talk about it, he is supportive of that. rep. meeks: you've said it, the president has said it. ambassador haley: i work for the president, and i don't go rogue on the president. he's very aware of what i'm doing. he's very supportive of it, and i can tell you that in all of these issues we're not apart on it. he believes it strongly on the things i talk about as anyone else, and i would invite you to come to the united nation so you is see for yourself the strength the u.s. is showing there because it is strong, it is heard, and it is valuable. >> we're going to go to mr. dana row bucker of california. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. pretty strong coffee there, gregory. pretty strong coffee. i don't drink coffee myself. ambassador haley: i don't
either. i might start. rep. meeks: i don't drink coffee either. i'm just concerned about my nation. >> ok. well, let me just note that i think betrayal is a very rough word, and i would suggest that anyone who voted for giving $150 billion to the iranian government, making that available should not be talking about the words rich rail. rep. meeks: i did not use it she , did. rep. rohrabacher: ok. noted. madam secretary, i'd like to, number one, join my colleagues in suggesting that venezuela is something really important to look at and those people down there. venezuela used to be a shining -- basically a shining example of how freedom can work, and although there were a lot of problems, people there were working there together peacefully, and now for that to degenerate into what it is, if we can lend a hand there both at the united nations and through
as our, as your spokesman there in the united nations, make sure they know how concerned we are. we should be concerned about turkey. turkey's going exactly in the wrong way. and these are things that we inherited from the last administration, let me just note. this -- venezuela didn't just happen now. it's been -- it's been headed that way, i'm sorry, the last administration did not do what they needed to be done. we need to do more in that area to support the good people there in venezuela and turkey. let me note, we also need to support the good people in iran rather than giving $150 billion to their oppressors. we should be seeing what people we can actually be supportive of in iran who oppose the regime. so i would hope that in the united nations with these debates raised that those are the types of points that can be made. i'd like to ask you about how
much money do we spend -- you said it's 22% of the u.n. budget. how much is that altogether? ambassador haley: $600 million. rep. rohrabacher: $600 million. and how much does china pay in their dues? do we know? ambassador haley: a lot less. a lot less. rep. rohrabacher: a lot less. ambassador haley: but i'm happy to get that you number. rep. rohrabacher: well, i'm just saying that because i think that when we have a body like the united nations, and we're spending such a high proportion of their budget comes from us, and for us to be the whipping boy or our friend, israel, become the whipping boy, i think that's -- should be unacceptable. and i would -- you can rest assured that those of us in this committee will be backing you up when you make such stands. my friend chris smith mentioned how sex and labor trafficking in
china is something we have ignored up until now. and i would hope that these human rights issues do become part of president trump's agenda. let me note, and i think, by the way, we only have the last administration for eight years to compare what mr. trump, what president trump is doing. i think president trump is doing a great job. he's doing a fantastic job. how many american presidents instead of going -- this american president went to saudi arabia and talked to the leaders of the islamic world, and said if you want to be friends of the united states, drive the terrorists out of your mosque. i've never been more proud of a president since ronald reagan said tear down this wall. and i think it was equivalent of that. so i would hope that those people who are just anti-this president or trying to play
politics with it, and just one last note. russia say flawed country, is a flawed state. i will just have to say that we should be making overtures to see if russia can help us bring peace in, in the middle east, especially if syria rather than trying to basically alienate russia more and more and more. because there are bad guys. the syrians aren't the only bad guys in that region. many of our own allies are just as dictatorial and bad as assad is. so let's hope that we can try to establish a more positive relationship with russia that will help bring peace to that part of the world and help all of us. thank you very much. ambassador haley: thank you, and i'll do this very quickly. i will continue to be a thorn in maduro's side when it comes to venezuela. i will continue to do that for human rights in any country that is an abuser of that.
in terms of russia, i agree with you. general mattis continues to work with russia because we do need to work with them on syria, and we can work with them on counterterrorism. and so we're trying to find the places where we can work with them, but we're going to call them out in places that we have to. rep. rohrabacher: thank you very much. >> new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to just say to my friend, my colleague from south carolina, the great introduction, i just have a question. which job did you like better, being in south carolina as the governor or being in the big apple in new york? [speaking simultaneously] ambassador haley: ask me in six months. rep. sires: ambassador, you know, some of us are frustrated. i did not grow up in this country. i grew up in a country where the soviet union just basically tried continue to doctrine nate
-- indoctrinate everybody on the destruction of this country, how this is the worst country in the world, how we have to destroy democracy. and i guess the frustration that we have is that the president doesn't seem to share that view. he doesn't seem to speak strongly enough on what russia is doing, interfering with the democracy of this country, how he's trying to undermine this country, how he's trying to basically destroy what we stand for. certainly around him speaks enough about it, but he is the biggest voice. you have a great voice, but he is a lot bigger. i wish he would come and say, look. this is happening. they did try to undermine our democracy. that is part of our frustration. the under -- the other thing i want to commend you on, the human rights issue. i promise the state troopers in new jersey that i would raise joanne, a state trooper was shot in new jersey
and led to cuba and has been living there as a hero for the last four years. if you could mention to the president that we want this criminal back, so we can continue the justice. if you could talk a little bit about that, and obviously, venezuela, i am concerned about and as we look. shotf the police officers through the fence a young boy, point blank. it is horrible. how you walk through the halls of the united nations. the hypocrisy there is just young, when you have human rights leaders -- just beyond, when you have human rights leaders who are some of the most -- the worst offenders in the world. ambassador haley: in terms of russia, the only thing i can all you is that i have done strong share of russia-bashing while i have in at the u.n..
the president hasn't called me once and for me to stop it and has not in any way told me, don't bash russia. i do think my hope you will understand he could have, but he hasn't. thereference to the crew -- cuban criminal, i will see what we can do to get the administration, the administration has been very good about getting people home. it is something that is a priority, so i will also work and make sure that is on our list. venezuela come in huge concern. huge concern. i can't bring enough attention to what the venezuelan people are going through, and how we are seeing more and more aggression by maduro. if you heard his speech yesterday, he is very much saying he will use military action, he is very much saying he will get more aggressive and he is blaming the protesters for trying to overthrow his government when all they want is democracy, true democracy. in the u.n., we work, it is just
like you work here. i have to work with certain people, and on some issues, we agree, and on them issues, we don't. both have a loud voice on of those. when it is time to work with china, i do, but in the human rights council, i called out shine and saudi arabia and cuba and -- china and saudi arabia and cuba. we try not to isolate anyone. we try to make sure where we can work with them, we do, but we are not shy about calling them out. rep. sires: do we have any time -- type of planning case -- plan in case murder a moose towards using the military? i think he is in the final stage of becoming a dictator. he already is. but i think it will get worse. do we have any plans? are we talking to any members? i think we will have an exodus, people leaving. already, i know panama tells me they have a lot of people coming
over, columbia has a lot of. we have any plans? there are haley: plans in a couple places. we brought it up at the human rights council. we were hoping for oas. i will continue to push it at the security council. i will welcome any support you guys can give in terms of that, but i think we have to go back to the security council and do something about it there. the u.s. is reviewing the policy and what we would do it this got worse, so i know within our national security council meetings that we have, venezuela is very much on the radar. rep. sires: think you very -- thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and ambassador for being here today. i had the pleasure of meeting you last you -- last week. thank you for your time then and now. a lot of us have been very impressed with what we have seen and heard thus far since you have entered into your current position. so thank you for your
leadership. i am going to repeat to some degree what a number of other members have expressed as a big concern of theirs, and it is of mine, as well. that is the human rights council, it seems they spend an inordinate amount of time, most of their time, really, criticizing one of our most important allies, israel. as you know, you recently stated to the council, quote, "it is essential that this council address its chronic anti--israel bias if it is going to have any credibility." i certainly agree with you in that respect. i would perhaps go further. i don't know if it is possible for them to gain credibility after the waste of time they have spent criticizing israel. i welcome your input, anything you would like to tell us on that issue. thank you.
ambassador haley: the reason i went to geneva was very much to say it to them, and not just sent a statement from new york. we just said, for the united states to be involved in the human rights council, they have to give us a reason to be. right now, we are going to be, for human rights, it is either going to be inside or out of the council, and what you saw was a lot of other countries are embarrassed by agenda item seven. they get that it discredits them and they understand something needs to happen. that ity suggested is is saudi arabia, egypt and pakistan that continue to use a agenda item seven. we are now going to try to work with those three and see what we can do to get that to stop because i think that is incredibly important. but i also think we need to have competitive elections. when you have cuba and venezuela and saudi arabia and china and all of these of the human rights council, there is something very wrong. what it has become over the
years is a place that that thers go to sit and keep sunlight from shining on them. it very much embarrasses these countries when human rights is brought up. it is very much the reason they would don't want me to bring it up in the security council, but i will continue to do that. that is why we have a decision to make. we will see if they make any proactive changes to the human rights council, and then we will decide whether the u.s. is better to be in it or off of it, but that is the dilemma we are going for. rep. chabot: i agree completely. .et me turn now to korea we have 28,000, approximately, u.s. troops there, and as we all know, they had elections recently and they have a new president, who tends to be more on the left than the previous government was. one of his first acts was to suspend deployment of the fayette missile defense, which i think was a big mistake.
but they have put, i think, our troops at risk. said as muchmp recently when he said he didn't feel that our troops or safe there -- were safe there. it would seem to me that we ought to give south korea a choice. they have the choice of having the most sophisticated missile-defense system, the fayette system, to defend them, and to defend our troops. so they get the missile system and our troops, or they have no missile-defense and no u.s. troops. i think it ought to be a very clear choice to them, and they need to face the choice had on -- cap-on. it is a responsible press to lower troops, it was different we didn't have that capability. we have troops all around the world that are at risk, and i think it is an unreasonable risk when we have the ability, now,
to defend those troops. withnment, in cooperation us, could defend those troops more effectively and i would welcome your comments on that. ambassador haley: i think that is something that, what we saw with moon was very cautious going into it, but he has actually made good strides towards us and away from north korea on many levels, and those missiles that continue to be tested, continue to push the other way. i think he was trying to slow it down to see where it was going to be. i think he is getting pressure from china to get rid of fat. china is the number one country pushing them to get the system out. at the end of the day, i personally believe it is going to work itself out, but i also know that the administration, the second we see something that is not going in the favor of protection of our troops, then i know the president will act. rep. chabot: thank you very much.
>> gerry connolly of virginia. connolly: welcome. glad to have you here today. you indicated that the budget was making a point more than it was a serious intention in and of itself. what point was being made eye -- by zeroingicef out unicef, an organization highly praised, had a lot to do with saving middle -- millions of children's lives around the world with nutrition and rehydration programming -- programs and the like? highly lauded, not political. why would we zero it out? what point was being made in the budget? ,mbassador haley: what point the budget was trying to put the human unnoticed. it was not about the specific organizations as it was about putting them on notice. i saw unicef in action when i went to jordan and turkey, to see the schools and what they do
is highly valuable. i believe i am a conduit between what the president's budget did and where you end up. i am happy to give any information on what is working, what is not working, or what i see -- >> i've been doing budgets appear and in my local government for over 30 years. when you zero something out, you're not making a point. you are making a profound statement and judgment about the value of that enterprise. seems to me to be something that is not a particularly proud value that americans would uphold. ambassador haley: i can tell you that, as governor, i also had a budget, and an executive budget is a very much a conversation point, a starting point. then, you work with your legislature to bring those two together. , thenk what you have is president was trying to make a
point to build up our military. yes, it ended up going to where it had certain cuts their -- >> i don't think you know -- i'm sorry?haley: >> i don't think you want to go there. president was making a point that people who need to price -- and the price our children around the world were at risk for malnutrition? ambassador haley: having conversations of the president on this budget, where congress ends up, there is working room. there is room where i know he would want to support unicef. >> you are a loyal member of the administration. good for you. unicef makes no sense to me and it is not making a point. you said members are glad we are "leading again." are those the same members who have condemned president trump's ripping up of the tpp and renouncing the paris agreement? i am looking at some close allies, some of whom are members of the security council, like rants and not german -- like france and germany, certainly
weren't praising america's leadership on those things. ambassador haley: again, as a governor, with the paris agreement, the number of regulations it put on our businesses, the number of rings to recruit me trying international companies and how -- >> i wasn't asking that weston. i only have five minutes. my question was whether your colleagues at the u.n. were praising those decisions as america leading again. ambassador haley: the u.s. has to make decisions that are in the best interest of the u.s. it is not in the best interest for our businesses or our industries. we are not going to throw the climate out the window. we are going to continue to manage that -- >> i am glad to her that -- ambassador haley: i think what the president did was in the best interest of businesses, and it was in the best interest of the country, and that doesn't mean we are not going to be good stewards of the climate. >> a lot of big businesses -- ambassador haley: we don't know
-- we don't want china and russia telling us how to handle the climate. >> we helped initiate the paris agreement. they didn't put a gun to our head. ambassador haley: it didn't go through the senate. >> it is a proud moment that we are drop -- joining nicaragua and syria in that. ambassador haley: we are being independent. >> can i ask you finally, what instructions you have been given about russia. presumably it talked to your russian counterparts about syria? ambassador haley: i talked to them about a lot of things. >> but elections? that is off-limits? ambassador haley: what do you want me to say to them? we are working on international issues. i have made it public that i think, i do believe they interfered with our elections. i have also said we can't have any country interfere in our elections and i stand by that. >> i understand. but you hold an important diplomatic position at the united nations. the russians are at the united nations. ly oflked about a panopo
issues. have you received instructions as far as their meddling in our elections? like i'm a don't talk about that? ambassador haley: it hasn't come up. >> it has never come up? have you received instructions from the state department, don't talk about that? ambassador haley: no. >> any instructions? ambassador haley: none. nobody has said, don't do anything, you are out of line. --ppreciate that this in this administration doesn't only what to say or what not to say. they allow me to say what i think they support me through that. iq, mr. chairman, ambassador, for restoring american leadership to the unit in it -- the united nations. thank you for participating in the national security forum. i chair the homeland security committee, and over the previous administration, over the last six years, i saw the caliphate
expand and expand and nothing was done to stop it. external operations have been launched out of that region, and now, it has become the epicenter for terrorism and the epicenter, the greatest humanitarian crisis we have seen with millions of refugees in turkey and jordan, as you know, and throughout europe, which poses a risk, as well. of thisy proud administration's efforts to crack down on this terrorist organization, but in the meantime, as we did nothing, russia went into syria to get the ports on the mediterranean. iran is now in the region. my question is very simple. what is your strategy to deal with this very, very complicated situation? ambassador haley: i think it is changing by the day. i think we are literally watching the serious situation changing by the day. i've visited jordan and turkey recently, estimator, as well as israel, to make sure, to see
what the migration is doing and how we were dealing with syrian refugees and how the host countries were dealing with it. jordan and turkey have been phenomenal to their refugees. they see it as their duty. what we saw in jordan is, they are giving education and health care and a stipend. they do it on a bank card. whether the refugee goes to a bank or a grocery store, it is by eye scan. they have 0% fraud. it is impressive. turkey is doing very much the same thing, but they actually have their turkish doctors soining the syrian doctors the syrian doctors can take care of syria. jordan is taking in one million refugees, turkey is taking in 3 million, but they are feeling the pressure. they are double shifting schools. jordanians and turkish children go in the mornings, syrians go in the afternoon. competition for jobs is starting to be there, but the syrians are very grateful. they are very entrepreneurial.
they are creating their economy in the caps with that of, alterations, and all these types of businesses. we need to support the host countries they -- >> i want to applaud your actions against assad and his use of chemical weapons to kill children in the hospital. as long as he remains in power, propped up by russia and iran, this civil war will continue to is the roothat cause of this whole problem. it won't and and the refugee humanitarian crisis won't end until i think that problem is dealt with. ambassador haley: from the political situation of syria, you are looking at, i think we are certainly making a lot of strides of getting isis out. i think it has been aggressive. it is going faster than we expected from that standpoint. it is good. the irani and influence in syria is a problem. it will continue to be a problem come because they are clearly
backing assad. we are trying to make that separation because that needs to happen. i think one of the best things we did, after the chemical weapons program, when the president made that decision to go in and strike, it sent shock waves throughout the international community, as well as in syria, to let them know we wouldn't stand for it. the president held true to any signs of chemical weapons, we will get involved. we have to look at, what will the u.s. role be post-isis, when isis gets out? a healthy syria is not with a side. -- with assad. so i think we have to look at it from all levels and realize that a post-isis syria doesn't mean all be happy to it should and good again. we have to make sure it doesn't stay vulnerable for other terrorist groups. >> it is good to finally see the
leadership in that part of the world. the iranians, i'm not sure about the russians -- himssador haley: they see as a liability. to have aossible graceful exile of mr. aside and work with them. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> we go now to mr. ted deutch of florida. before asking questions, i went into make one request. i represent bob, who has been missing for 10 years. if you see anybody from the iranian delegation or when you speak with our allies to speak with the iranians, please press for his return to his family. again, thanks for being here. i am grateful for what you said this morning and your presence at the u.n. this past five months, your willingness to speak out for human rights, is welcome. at times, your advocacy for
human rights agendas seems to be at odds with some other members of the administration, who don't seem to place the same value on human rights in the center of our policy agenda, where it belongs, as you do. the lack of coordinated messaging has, at times, left our friends and allies around the world confused and questioning, and i imagine it has made it -- your job challenging but i commend you for what you do and convening a special session on human rights during the un security council. it is important to do what you are doing. we are able to shine a light on human rights abuses. you are able to push for peacekeeping reform. you are able to urge for greater efficiency and refugee assistance because the u.s. is fully engaged at the u.n., and while the u.n. is far from perfect, if we retreat from it instead of working to improve it, we will see leadership -- we will seed leadership. american leadership is what helps to prevent global health
crises and address food insecurity. it helps address instability in dangerous places. diplomacy and development helps prevent wars. so i hope that we will, you will continue to speak out and this progress will fully fund our commitment to these efforts. i agree with the concerns you laid out. i have spoken out forcibly the pervasive anti-human rights -- no country has been subject to more resolutions than is real, but it is true that since the u.s. reengaged on the council, the number of his real specific resolutions has decreased. it is hard to take the human rights council seriously when some of the world's worst human rights abuses -- abusers sit on the council to shield themselves from criticism. if we walk away from the council and give those bad actors free reign to make a mockery of human rights, we will all be the worse off for it. i hope we will stick with it so
you can continue to make the case. reforms, to possible membership standards and the removal of agenda item seven. on membership standards, i wonder if you could tell us how the team in geneva is working to advance that, specifically are you laying out criteria for membership and how can we help you with that? then, secondly, on agenda item seven, it is my understanding that procedurally, the next time it can come up on the agenda is 2021. earlier, you mentioned that in your discussions with other countries, you singled out egypt and saudi arabia and pakistan as the only ones who will not acknowledge the absurdity of having a dedicated agenda item for a democratic ally of ours on the human rights council agenda while completely ignoring the human rights abuses in iran and north korea and venezuela.
my question to you on that is, given that those countries are the ones who object and given that this administration at this table,has a lot of the have you spoken to the administration about using all of its resources with the saudis and the egyptians and the pakistanis to help them understand why it is in their best interest to partner with us to make the human rights council a place that actually can be respected? is so, what steps have you taken? ambassador haley: in reference to bob levinson, we will never let that go. of, yous on the hearts know, many americans wanting to see him and his family reunited. so yes, we will continue to keep up the pressure on that. in terms of the budget, i want to eat -- to be a conduit in any way i can. i want to let you know what i
have found to be valuable, what i think is important, and we will continue to be a leader at the u.n.. i strongly believe that. so we need to decide, what those areas are and we will continue to do that. in reference to the human rights council, yes, we talked about competitive elections because typically, what happens is, by the time the region decides who that person is going to be, they are already on the ballot and there is no contest. we have to look at the contest before. it will have to be willingness by others. we know it can be done, because russia lost last time. they lost because of their participation in ukraine. we just have to learn from that and say, how can we continue to bring those things up? we are working not only with the human rights council itself, but we are working and trying to engage in the general assembly and maybe look at using on the a in september to see
what we can do there. i know item seven doesn't come up until 2021. we will not wait that long. our goal is to go ahead and start doing this now because there are ways we can do it now. we have, i have talked with the secretary general about it. i talked with the human rights council about it. theve talked to members of administration. this will be multilevel. secretary tillerson and i have discussed what pressure we need to put on what countries, so yes, we will take that from all angles we can. >> thank you. >> jeff duncan of south carolina. >> i am reminded of, and i want to remind the committee, that president obama's statement -- state department spent money and gave money towards one voice and israel to influence the election or the ouster of prime minister netanyahu in 2015. doingador haley, you are a great job. thanks for being here today. i am one that believes that foreign aid is a powerful tool, in u.s. foreign-policy.
i get a little more than chagrined when recipients of large amounts of u.s. foreign aid don't vote with the united states. in thet half the time u.n., if you look at the voting records of countries like haiti, a huge recipient of u.s. foreign i did theack when research in 2012, they were voting with us 18% of the time. if you really go through the list of countries that receive billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, this is money from hard-working american taxpayers that we are giving away to foreign countries that can't even vote with us, their benefactor, at least half the time in the u.n. that. you are aware of some have speculated our efforts to with the votes of the u.n., , try to get our beneficiaries to vote with the scum are not as good as our adversaries. you support the position that we taxpayerhave --
dollars go with us at the u.n.? x -- ambassador haley: the 1.i continue to make is, the u.s. will not be taken for granted. you can't think of this money will continue to roll to you. we put them on notice. i do inc. we very much have a partnership that we can have with congress, because we need to make sure they understand, it is not just, give me the money then turn around and go against things that matter to us on the other side. coordinating that is something we very much want to start doing at the u.n. in terms of adding to see if we can push boats that way. i'm happy to work with you on think it is important. we want to do what is in the best interest of people. we have always had a moral, we have a release -- always been the moral compass of the world. but we will not be rolled over anymore at the u.n. we will not allow that to happen.
every dollar matters, and we don't have to give it. if we do, other countries just need to respect that and understand that. many do not vote against us on things that we know that, in turn, will help them. i absolutely think you're right. >> i had the same conversation with countries that are part of the oas with regard to venezuela, that don't seem like and can both with the u.s. democracy loving countries as things,does different not release engines at this point, towards venezuela. let me ask you let me ask you about -- we're seeingsince the columbia negotiations and the peace deal that was policemen maented there as chairman of the westernhemisphere subcommittee next thing to look at is going to bethe increase in coke coproduction and cocaine trafficking outof columbia. >> i believe they took their eye off the ball with regard to the cartel and even the fark trying to grow a lot of coka and increase cocaine production to
put some money in the bank before they became a legitimate political power. so under thatpeace agreement. so is there anything at the u.n., anyconversations being had about cocaine trafficking, increase in columbia and peru and what we can do as a community to stopdrug trafficking? >> ok. first of all, to kind of go back to your last comment, i would remind that you we give quite a bit of money to thepalestinian authority directly bilaterally and any leverage you can do on getting them to stop those barter payments is going to be very important. and if you can make that correlation and use that as a conversation point, that would be very helpful tome. in terms of the fark, we saw that the weapons turned over yesterday were we had a good announcement there in terms of things are starting to move. the security council does have aone-year mandate in columbia to sit there and look at all
ofthose things. and in that it is obviously to bring up the healthand the effectiveness of how to make columbia strong. so, yes, those will be one of the things we're doing. you also know we have our south carolina national guard that's partners with columbia as well and so i think you're right to see past the fark and see where it's going from there to look at the future ofcolumbia and so we'll be happy to partner with you on that as well. >> i visited with the national guard folks in columbia and very proud of what they're doing. i know you were part of that as well with general livingston. so thank you for that thanks for being here. >> sharon karen bass of california. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you madam ambassador. i wantto congratulate your leadership and your short tenure anddefinitely register that i appreciated you bringing the security council to washington, d.c. and including members of congress.i would love to see that happen again and i also look forwardto continuing to work with you on south sudan and famine.
so i wanted to ask you questions primarily related to that. given that the u.n. as declared that famine in the four countries as the world's worst humanitarian crisis since 1945 what concernsme the most is it's the crisis that no one seems to know anything about. and i wanted to know specifically what the u.n. is doing to bring the crisis to the attention of the world. the last timethere was crisis like this in 2011 in sa 3458ya, 200,000 people had to die before the world took notice. the other thing is that ourcontribution of $990 million, we put that in the continuing resolution. i do have concerns as i think mr. chairman smith mentioned, that that money gets out of the door as quick aspossible and that money not be rolled over into fiscal year '18because that blows the entire point. the point was to respond to the crisis. and then of course i'm concerned about thebudget proposed by the
administration that would cut food aid. so when i look at this hand out, this hand out is from usaid and it talks about the funding gap. we have madesubstantial contributions but other donors still have quite a lot to contribute. so i wanted to know your thoughts on how we might be helpful to you in terms of getting other donors to step up to the plate, including some nontraditional donors such as china and the middle east. >> thank you. and i -- i really do believe these four famine areas are extremely important. and we need to -- if we really want peace and stability we need to look at that. when it comes to thefood aid, very important that we continue to work with usaid but also with the world food program. we now have -- we made sure that we have an american leading that who happens to be a former south
carolina governor david beasley and he has hit the ground running and is really starting to raise quite a bit of money for the world food program as well. but we need to continue to put pressure on other countries because thesecretary general has raised the famine issue as something to be concerned about. we don't want people to get overly excited that south sudan came off that list because it's the food insecurity is still very strong. and then there's the political issues. you've still got access issues of trying to get the foodin. you've got still issues with south sudan when it comes to that. when it comes to yemen, we're watching the port very carefully. we have to make sure that there's no problem with that port or we will really be in a bad situation. and then whenit comes to nigeria and somalia, just dealing with alshah boband boko haram are going to continue to be issues as deterrences to getting the food in. i think what's most important is we continue to talk about it.
thank you, thank you, thank you for the billion dollars because that was hugelyimportant when it came to the famine relief. thankd we need to continue to do that, but it's also the reason i'm going there in the fall. so i can see it in terms of what else can the u.n. be doing, what else can the u.s. be doing in terms of helping with that situation. >> when we did go when chairman smith dand go, even thoughfamine has been rolled back in south sudan, we did find that people are only getting enough food for half a month. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> so maybe it's that they're not dropping dead as quick, but, you know, they still are very much in a crisis. and then i hope, you know, you mentioned mr. beasley chairing -- heading up the world food program. but yet our budget calls for cuts tothat. and so i'm hoping that, you know, in your position you can push back and encourage those cuts not happen because we don't have any reason to the world to think that we're not going to be facing famine next year until we address the root causes of the famine, which is the conflict.
and then just on a final note at the end of my time, you know, i know that there's a lot of interest in getting countries that disagree with us tovote with us. and i don't know where you measure that, and i would hate to think that the u.s. would move in a position of saying we're going to withhold aid unless you vote 10%, you 15%,100%? how do you measure -- how do you measure that? and i think that would be a very bad precedent and direction for to us go forward. so i look forward to continuing to work with you and maybe we can speak before you head off to you south sudan the next time. >> yes. no hard percentages on what funding should happen. i think that we just look at each individual one and where we see a bad actor that's not relating well with the palestinians to get them to stop those murder payments is so important. and i think it creates a conversation for you all to have to help encourage that.
but we're not looking at hard cuts in terms of that. and i continue to tell the president what is valuable andwhat is not and so things like unicef and world food programand the famine issues are things that i have talked with him about and will continue to talk to him about and i think that's why we can be the conduit between the president and congress on where that final budget ends up. >> ok. it's great to be in the chair with governor -- with ambassador haley here. the chair will now good to mr. perry for five minutes. >> thank you, mir chairman. ambassador great to see you. on behalf of all the americans that feel as i do that we're tired ofseeing america be the whipping post, we're very proud of yourservice in thor is vifs our president of the united states and let me just state that.
and then with your indulge against i just want to address what i think is political feeder here, so whileit's interesting, i and the american people may marvel at the less new found concern regarding russian/communist, socialist nations continued efforts to diminish america. to remind everybody about the fdr administration, harry hopkins who served at the very highest levels of government and whatseems to be the less continued and being enamored with russia,cuba, et cetera, from fdr to the previous president's statementsto then president men bed yef and i just got a news flash foreverybody. russia communist, the socialist have always meddledin america, have always targeted us, and they're going to continue to do that. so welcome to the fight. with that,ambassador, i have a question which i'm going to put up front just four think about and then i'm going to buttress it a little bit here. i'm working on some legislation to prevent u.s.taxpayers from funding unra, right, the united nations relief inworks agency. and i want to get your thoughts on that, in ageneral way as it currently exists.
and the context is this. it's 67 years old pit looked at their mission statement to establish alasting peaceful end to the israeli/palestinian conflict through district bilateral negotiations, that's number one. number two. counter palestinian terrorist groups. number three establishthe norms of democracy, accountability and good governance.and when i look in that context what we're dealing with nowand i'll just pick out a couple things, unra's expansive definitionof refugee where president abbas has acknowledged that that definition would mean the end of israel, that's number one. number two, the hamas affiliated -- affiliation with unra and the fact i'll just give you a metric here, since 2006 hamas afill alted candidates have held 11 seats on the unra teachers union executive boards and the unra's schools that use textbooks and materials that delegitimizes israel, denigrate jaws andmarchediam. 46% of use in the west banks support the knife into fadda.
76% of the terrorist taking part in the knife into fadda were under the age of 30. and finally, i don't understand and i'm not sure why anybody can explain to me how they report directly to the general assembly rather than theunited nations high prigs commissioner or refugees. so it's beensince 1950 that we've been paying for i think we're currently up to about 31% of their budget for a temporary mandate. united states is out of money, we're out of cash to throw around.we're $20 trillion in debt, 200 trillon dollars in unfunded liebltsds. it seems like it's been long enough to fund something that can't meet its mission. as a matter of fact, i 24i6r7k it would be correct to say that it flies in the face and runs completely counter to every single one of the policy goals it was set up for.
yet the american hard paying, hardworking taxpayer is paying for this thing. what are your thoughts, ma'am? >> so i had thought a lot of what you said about raun but i wanted to see it for myself. and so when i went to israel, i went to the plib areas and looked at unra camp. we talked about the schools, we talked about the textbooks, we talked about participation of hamas and where things were going with that. and this is what i will tell you. yes, unra is not perfect and, yes,when it comes to any sort of relationship with hamas that needs to come out. they claim they are cleaning up the textbooks but i think more work needs to be done on that front. the only reason why i would say don't eliminate unra is becausethere is so much resentment between the palestinians behind that fence and israel that an uneducated palestinian versus an educated palestinian or unhealthy.
>> i'm going push back a little minute. this seems like a fair question. how much longer should folks like me wait on behalf of the american taxpayers until they clean up their act? it's been67 years. how much longer should we wait? >> i feel your sfrus administration and i think that what we needto figure out is what is the replacement of unra or how do wego back? first we have to limit the number of refugees it's out of hand the number of people that unra covers because they're not all refugees. but the schooling and the healthcare for those groups in there, i mean, there's no other place for them to get it. and so there's a population there that does need to have that. all the points you raised are right and all the -- those are all things that we need to fix. but i jufs -- >> my time as it expired ms. ambassador but at a minimum i
think we ought to look at what they're mission and is if we can't meet this mission we ought to reestablish a new one and i yield. gentleman's time expired i will now go town to mr. keating for five minutes. madam ambassador thank you for being here and thank you for your service. the office of u.n. women, i think is a very important office. it empowers and trainswomen's groups so that they can contribute to conflict resolution and peace building. it also deals with an issue that this committee he's been very involved in in terms of havingwomen be active as a participant in counterterrorism implementation and dealing with that implementation task force. make sure that gender's addressed in counterterrorismstrategies. it's also involved among many other things in fighting violence against women, engaging women and protecting women themselves, and providing resources to women who are victims of violence. you said the president's budget is there to make a point. what point did the president make by zero funding this office?
>> well, you know, my job is to go through and look and see what the office does, whether it's valuable, what the u.s. role should be in and then report back. so that's what i plan on doing. >> did you think it's valuable, that office. >> we'll find out. >> i think i need to do more but, yes. overall anything that empowers women creates a healthy situation for women, works for girls, does any of those things, yes, it sounds good on the surface. but we're going through all of those. whether it's like unesco or whether it's any of these programs that we have, we're going to continue to look at them. >> what is the time frame for going through now this? you can enlighten us in terms of a time frame where perhaps we'll get -- this office will know it's going to continue to exist and go forward. >> i think you can expect in short-term. i mean we're going through all of these.
it's only been five months so we're trying to cover as much as we can at the u.n. and i'm happy to report back and let you know what we find out and whether it's valuable and it's something i would let the president know aswell. >> thank you. this committee has been very involved in trying to empower women and deal in that area itself so it's something that i would appreciate in short-term. >> we will get back to you on that. >> getting back to you. >> yes. >> yes. >> we talked about staffing in state department in particular and all those areas that haven't been staffed and i wonder in your working with state has that it difficult to communicate back and forth for you and your function and just to give a sense of things, do you have a lot of opportunityto deal directly with secretary tillerson and coordinate and have conversations? how frequently do you have the opportunity to converse or stay in touch? >> so i -- because i'm a cabinet member i primarily work with general mcmaster at the nsc and so we work with his staff quitea bit. with the hiergz at the state department were we have nothing to do with that so i'm focused on the hiergz at usun. we have saved 500,000 compared to thyme last year by cutting
overtime and trips and certain things. but our experts there are fantastic. >> but it hasn't inhibited you in terms of your communication with the secretary back and forth that lack of staffing. >> you know, i just -- i work more with the nsc than i did with the state department. >> i see. do you have occasion to work with the president's senior adviser because he's so involved with right now in middle east mr. kushner, have you talked and engaged with him? how frequently do you talk to mr. kushner about these international problems? >> it depends on what issues he's working on, but i've talked to him certainly before i went to israel to deal lfs to look at theu.n. programs. i always download them on what the trips are,they let me know if there's any issues. but with the u.n., iprimarily work with secretary tillerson or general mcmaster.but if jared has a certain question or certain issue that he wants to discuss, then he will call me.
>> what's your view of his role? >> i think that, you know, when it comes to the israeli/palestinianpeace process i think he's being very effective in terms of when i was there, there's hope. i felt it both sides realized they've got to come to the table, both sides realize something needs to happen. >> i think he's handled it respectfully and i think he's handled it aggressively. so that's really the one thing i've worked with him on. and i think that on any other issues that he works on i'm notas sure because we don't have as much. >> i know that he was very involved in the trip that the president made. >> sure. >> to the area and that was extremely effective because i was in the area and it was very well received. >> well thank you.
i just had one other quick question because pooim my time is running out. >> yes. >> yes. >> with cutter and the blacked a, what's your position on that? there seems to be conflicting positions within the administration. >> i see it as an opportunity. we should take it as the opportunity that it is. it's a good chance to tell cutter quit funding hamas,quit hamas, quit doing the things in gaza they are doing. let them know that they have been funding groups that are going towards that terrorist activity we don't want to see, but at the same time go back to saudi arabia and say, look, you can talk to them, but at the same time you've got to cut this out, you've gotto stop doing this. it's an opportunity to kind of hit on both of them, i think. >> thank you for coming here and i hope we have the opportunity to have you back here again. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> welcome, ambassador. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> before you assume your position in the u.n. pass resolution 2334 really disastrous resolution, frontal attack on israel what is your understanding about the role that your predecessor played in facilitating that? >> well, i made sure to every member of the security council to let them know what a kick in
the gut 2334 was to the people of the united states. >> and was that view a change from what they had been told previously with the previous administration? >> there was some who were apologetic, there were some that were resentful, there were some that acting indifferent, but yes, they did let me know that this was u.s. led and u.s. pushed and that only made it worse. >> no doubt. so the question is do we have an opportunity torepeal that or reverse that and if not why should the american taxpayer fund an organization that of their 24 resolutions 20 of them were dealing with this one tiny -- the only jewish state,the state of israel? >> i can tell you it's been nothing short of abusive what has happened to israel and the only thing i can compare it to, it's like the kid bullied in the playground.
they did it to make themselves feel better. they did it because it was in habit. they did it because they could. i think that what i will tell you is we put them on notice the very second i went to my first hearing because i could not believe how abusive it was. >> so you think the american taxpayer has a right to expect changes at the u.n. in order to continue to send money. >> absolutely. they all know not to talk about 2334, very hardto repeal now that it's done, but what we will do is call them out anytime this happens and we have seen a decrease in that rhetoric and in this last israel bashing session which they do every month and have for the last ten years it was the first time that they actually -- the majority of the members just pushed the peace process instead of bashing israel. so there is a change, but there is a long way to go. >> and i appreciate your leadership. we also can take otheractions, the president when he campaigned promised to moveour embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem, i've gone over there, looked at sites, it can be done. do you support doing that and can we eventually do that? >> i support the embassy move
and i believe the president supports it as well. it's not about if it happens it's about when. >> but i hope it's soon because i think it would be great if we could do it now. there's an issue of we have americans that were born in jerusalem when they go to get passports the state department does not allow them to write israel, jerusalem israel because they claim that that's a dispute and it's not the capital of israel. can we get relief for some of those? would you favor that, allowing americans born in jerusalem to just have jerusalem israel if they so choose on their passports. >> i'm not aware of that but i'm happy to talk to the state department about that and see what it would take. >> muslim brotherhood is that part of the solution in the middle east or part of the problem in the middle east and if it's thelatter should the u.s. designate them as a foreign terroristorganization? >> so i think that that's highly debated. that is not something that has been discussed within the administration. i am not a fan of the muslim brotherhood. so i do think that they are more
problematic in the area than helpful. >> because i think that we hit the terrorists kind of whack a mole, which is good, you have to take them out, but there is afoundational ideological view that is motivating that and there will be other people that fill that vacuum. the brotherhood i think represents the foundation and if we can deal with that then i think we're dealing with the problem of radical islamic terrorism much more holistically and likely to be moreeffective. >> i completely agree with you. >> turkey, are they a valuable part of nato at this point? there was a disastrous display here in washington where erdogan's goons are beating american protesters, you've seen a countrythat used to be a bridge to the west has turned in a much more islamist direction, our relationship with turkey, is it strained? what's the viability of them as a nato ally if they seem to be going in a direction that's different from the western values that the rest of the nato allies hold?
>> so a few things with turkey. it's complicated but when i was in turkey i did meet with the foreign minister. it was mainly focused on how to get access into syria because they were stopping some of the ngos from getting in there but we talked about multiple other things, prisoner releases and things along those kind. turkey is a fantastic host country to the syrians, they aredoing everything right by the skierians, their government is starting to turn for the worse, you can start to see more of a dictatorship that's starting to happen, those types of things. i work closely with the turkish ambassador because with everything going on we need to. they are not happy with what we have done with the ypg, but they get it. they don't like it, but they get it. and so i think turkey is one of those that it's got itsgood sides, it's got its bad sides. it has been made clear to themat the highest level that you can't
come to our country andact like that. at the highest level. they know that that's not something we will tolerate. they know that it was very much frowned upon. they have given excuses as to why it happens and they know we are not taking any of their excuses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. obviously for the indian americans this is probably a first and obviously proud for the community. you know, madam ambassador, when we think about the u.n.security council it's been a consistent policy from the pastadministration also i think with the current administration todo necessary reforms and modernize the u.n. security council.can we get -- obviously the politics at the u.n. aren't going to be easy, but in the statement released earlier this week thepresident reaffirmed his commitment to add india as a permanentmember of the u.n. security council along with what i should argue we should include all of the g 4 nations.
is that something that we can get your commitment to continue to work on? >> well, i have told all members of the u.n. that we are in supportof security council reform as long as they don't take our vetoaway. that's been very important. so, yes, i know that there'smultiple different plans out there and things that are going on. we're going to continue to engage and continue to talk about that. >> great. thank you. in your earlier comments you noted that the budget was making a point as opposed to being reality reality. my colleague, mr. connelly talked about what unicefdoes and you yourself in answering one of his questions talkedabout how you've seen firsthand how what they do is incredibly valuable. can we get your commitment as you're working behind the scenes with the administration, with the president we will do our part to push to restore full funding or as much funding as possible. can we get your commitment that
that is a priority? >> i think that we need to, you know, remind these organizations that they, too, need to smartly spend and they need to look at their budgets as well as we are all kind of looking at how we can be smarter about what we do, but yes, i absolutely willsupport unicef. it's something that i'm happy to continue to talkto you about. that one and other organizations that we found helpful, but i'm also talking with the administration about it. >> great. thank you. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> another organization that was zeroed out was u.n. family planning agency.
their priority and their mission is to prioritizethe health and education and needs of women and girls around the world. if you look at their core work it's providing accessto contraception, it's providing safe childbirth, it's addressingand responding to gender-based violence, it's advocacy againstabusive practices like child marriage or female genitalmutilation. you would agree that those are worthy causes tofight? >> there are many causes that are important that affect women and children that we want to make sure that we keep that at theforefront. the problem with the u.n. fpa is they did have ties tochina that does force sterilization, but i can tell you every ounce of that money is going to all the things you just talked about, but it will be done through the general health programsthrough us aid. >> so i've got some concern because that has been brought upmultiple times under the last republican president, george w. bush, state department did do an examination to see if that was occurring and they did not find that evidence that unfpa was -- >> will the gentleman yield to that point. >> i only have a limited time. they were engaging in abortion or involuntary sterilization.
if that is, in fact, occurring, great, let's remove funding from those types of programs or let's hold unfpa accountable, but unfpa is doing tremendous work around the world protecting maternal child health and i saythat as a doctor. we shouldn't just throw everything out if there's a single program. i understand there is an amendmentand instead of just withdrawing all funding, a lot of women are going to suffer. there will be unnecessary deaths and so forth. can i get your assurances that you will look at these programs as opposed to just zeroing out and eliminating these programs? you know, if there's evidence of coercion, if there's evidence ofinvoluntary sterilization, great, address that, but let's not pull all of our funding. >> so on a lot of programs, yes, i'm happy to work with you on all of those. that is a decision that's already been made by the administration. so i don't anticipate a change in that, but i'mhappy to at
least let you know the information that they have on it. >> the administration already made a decision to zero outfunding for unicef. that's the starting point as you said, it's not necessarily an ending point. we can continue to put some of thispush back -- >> and i think that that was just a directive that we got, youknow, that that was going to happen. we haven't had that on unicef and some other things, but what i will tell you is very important is that global health of women and children as we go forward, and so we have made sure that that same money is going to global health programs to do the same things withinthe u.s. aid but i'm happy to give you any information as to what the administration's stance on that. >> miss ambassador, it's great to see you here, it's refreshing to see you hitting there compared to where we saw last time. but ilove your attitude because you're not serving political party, you're not serving so much the administration as
you'rerepresenting a america the way it needs to be represented andits strong leadership and i do thank you for that. some members are still in denial that america is facing tough economicchallenges coming, austerity measures are coming and so i amfor one happy to see some of the cuts the president has offered because that leads to reform and those reforms are what weneed to make. secretary tillerson in seoul declared the era ofstrategic patience towards south korea has ended. benignneglect is helping an illness gets better on its own. my directions are going to be towards china and china's help with correcting the problems and are they a strategic partner or astrategic opponent because i think their actions speak louderthan their words. they say they want to help us and what i see is double speak. if you look at what china has said they were going to help us
with north korea, they were going to put morepressure on them, but yet when they said they are not taking in any more coal, if you look at their iron orr imports from north korea to china it's up 270%. their trade for north korea in thefirst quarter of this year is up 37.4%. so when you look at what china is doing, they're putting pressure and boxing taiwan in,they've thrown them out of the world health assembly andthey've been -- taiwan was such a valuable partner in that, they are the ones that came up with the cures for the sars epidemicand they threw them out of that. they put pressure on panama to take taiwan out of that. they went against south korea whenwe put the thad system in, that was strictly defensive in nature. so china is showing aggression in there at the same time tellingus that they are going to work with us, yet they take over thesouth china sea and claim it all as theirs under the guise of peaceful navigational purposes.
so it was great to seen the phone ops that we did and i hope we continue that with allnations in the south china sea because china speaks that they are going to help us but yet their rhetoric isn't there. a detailedu.n. report published the names and addresses of multiple u.n. designated proliferateors that have openly operated on chinese soils for years and since then the center for advanced defensehave exposed china-based business networks as being behind thesmuggling of record cargos of north korean weapons to the middle east. so china is funding and allowing north korea togain access to these weapons or they are producing them,selling them to the middle east, going into the hands of terrorists fighting our troops.
so if china is really going to help us, my question to you is why hasn't china been heldaccountable for the repeated violations and undermining of u.n. sanctions and what tools does the u.n. have in your capacity to hold china accountable and ensure the sanctionsare implemented and two last things. i want you -- i chair the asia-pacific subcommittee on foreign affairs, i know we'reseparate branches of government but i want to know where we can help you. we put in the state sponsors of terror bill and i would sure love to see north korea put back on the state sponsor of terror so we can enforce the secondary tertiary sanctions on banks and businesses doing business with them. if you could answer that question about china. thank you. >> yes. so first of all, china is -- when it came to north korea i do think there was a good faith effort initially. we continue to putmore pressure, they continued to move a little
bit more. as the missile testing continued to happen they actually publicly in china were saying some things about north korea and then all of a sudden north korea pounced back and at that point we sawa calming down of china and pulling back again of china. i can tell you that they did when we proposed sanctions on north korea and all the entities in those missile tests, they voted with us and we were able to pass it because they voted with us. are they doing enough on trade with north korea? no. laborers? no. any of those other things, no. so the pressure we have put on has been strong and i have said publicly if we have to go tosecondary sanctions we will and so we are not past holding anyone accountable when it comes to supporting or helping north korea in what they're doing with the nuclear situation and we will continue to push hard on
that front and i think the president has also -- >> thank you for your service and thanks for being here. any way we can help you let us know. >> thank you. >> we go to lois frankel of florida. >> i want to thank you for your service. i have very high hopesand expectations for you and i just -- i'm just urging you to -- for you to remember that you represent all americans not justa president of the united states. i'm going to start with a little bit of a rant and then i do have a question. i do not understand why our president wants to put -- keep putting more money in defense but yet reduce the funding for those elements of oursecurity that would keep us from having to use our military. andthat means i think that your efforts should be fully funded obviously. i want to just say this, and i want to say it politely because, as i said, i really -- my purpose is to urge you to be a champion for the women of this world. and i did not like youranswer to my colleague's question about the defunding of the united nations population fund because you said, well, the administration has already made
that decision. well, i want tourge you to try to convince our president and administrationto overturn that. you know, i know you would agree that for the world to be peaceful that women need to be fully productive in their societies, not just reproductive, but productive and that means they have access to healthcare. inour own country our constitution gives us the right to contraception and to legal abortion and yet we are makingevery effort to cut that off all over the world. we have the gag rule now, now we have this defunding of the united nations population fund and with a totally phoney excuse about something china is doing which is no proof of.
so i want to knowhow you are going to fight to make sure that women have access to healthcare around this world. >> well, thank you, and i first want to say that i do believe this position i am serving every citizen in the country to try to have a strong voice for the united states. i will continue to do that and i see that as my role and my job. i have a passion for not only women but children in conflict. so at every position whether it was jordan, there it was turkey, whether it was israel i always just meet with women. now, i meet with others, but i do aseparate sidebar with women to find out exactly what they careabout. for example, in jordan and
the psychological support that they need and their children is a huge thing and i'm trying to really push that we starting to to that psychosocial support in helping them. when it comes to family planning we want to help with that as well. >> how are you going to do let me ask you this it? let me ask you this: have you had a discussion with the administration about reversing their position on the -- on thishealthcare funding? >> well, first of all -- >> would you have a discussion? >> of course. i've only been there five months so understand that unfpa that was decided very early on. i have no problem looking into it. i have no problem check to go see what the reasonings were behind it. >> i'm just going to say something here. i think it's an urgentissue because i have to tell you that access to healthcare andreproduction is something that's occurring every single day, soyou need to really do that. i have another question -- >> just one more point if you
don't mind. >> yes, please. >> so keep in mind the u.s. is not the only one who funds the unfpa, we are actually the third largest donor to the unfpa. so while i know that the u.s. has decided not to do that, those programs are not stopping because we do have other countries that are funding it. so i don't want you to think that that justgoes away. >> ok. attention on that. next question, last question, is i knowthat the president has suggested that your budget be cut.hopefully the congress is not going to go along with that.
i want to get a commitment from you. if we fund the positions and we fund the efforts at the u.n., the congress that we feel isnecessary, are you going to take the effort to hire the positionsand make sure that the issues we're trying to fund are executed? >> so i don't have anything to do with the state department hires, that's different. >> i'm asking you about your hires. >> yes, my hires, yes, we will continue to do that, and whatever budget you give me i will work with. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good luck. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm counting on you. >> i know and i will try to make you proud. thank you. >> thank you for being here. very appreciated. thank you for your service. thanks for spending the time with us and delving into a lot of important issues. i will point out the clock needs to be reset otherwise i will go on forever. anyway, so just thank you for everything you've done and for beinghere. a lot of important issues we're discussing, i think there's no more important issue than syria which i know you've touched on, but when we look at world stability, the war on terror,
american safety i think it's important that americans understand that what goes on in syria affects us here and thatthe brutal regime of bashar al assad backed up by the iraniansbacked up by the russians that are bombing hospitals with gps or precision guided munitions, secondary strikes against the same hospitals are creating a whole new generation ofterrorists. in fact, there were some in this body that buy intothe argument that strong men somehow work in the middle east and i think it's important to remember that with the era ofinformation and the era of being able to communicate people simply don't like to be oppressed. some people maybe think theyenjoy being oppressed but people don't like it. they naturally desire freedom and in that process of whether it's a chemical weapon attack, a conventional weapon attack, losing yourmarry father or mother or child makes you much more likely tojoin an opposition force which up until recently appears tohave been isis in many cases. i want to thank you and the administration for putting what i think was an amazing red line down in the statement about a pending potential chemicalweapons attack. as you said earlier i think that saved countless lives. there are a lot of children that now hopefully can realize their
dream of being a police officer or a teacher because of that really strong line. so it's great having you there, it's great having an administration that understands this. let me just ask a little about syria and the discussion of that next generation nl war on terror. i think it's a seven and eight year olds today that are in the refugee camps that are either not getting education or are getting education that are going to be either the folks that in frankly five years because that's how young they recruit them that we find ourselves having to fight on thebattlefield or else they will be the generation that actually rejects in ideology from within. can you talk about the difficulties in the refugee camps and the difficulties i guess in syria generally and how that plays into the long-term fight on terror that we have on our hands? >> yes. first of all, with syria i would remind you that the postisis decisions that are made on syria will be extremely important to make sure that it's not a new breeding ground or otherthreats to come in and having talked with the syrian refugeesboth in the camps and outside of the camps, they are completelyready
and waiting to go there and build it back up from scratch. they want to go home. they have family members there. that'ssomething that i think is going to continue to happen. when it comes to the education, so what we know is the refugees that have come out, those children are getting -- they're gettingeducated, they're getting assistance, they're being well taken care of. all of those things are fine. there are about 500 --300,000 students in turkey that are not getting educated, but the 3 million people are and they're trying to accommodate thatand that's what i'm trying to get the u.n. focus on supporting host countries so we can get those kids educated as well. in syria i don't think they are getting educated in syria. now, i'm sure every area is different, but it's just such a mess because we're just still trying to get aid in there,
we're still trying to get food in there and make sure that they are taken care of, but it's not just in syria. in any area around the world if you have children who have to do without, whether it's education,whether it's healthcare, any of those things, they are primetargets for terrorists to get them and we have to always remember that as we go forward because that is, yes, we candefeat isis today but those threats will go on forever and that's why i put so much emphasis on human rights as it relatesto conflict because those things are what drive terrorists to come in and take advantage of the wags. >> i thank you for being part of that whole of governmentapproach. the reality is you can't defeat an ideology with bombs and bullets, you can only defeat
existing terrorists. so it's important to think long-term because frankly this is going to bea long-term war. i think specifically a great country i got the privilege of visiting was liberia a and there is a strong u.n. mission there, i think it's important to note that when we talk about the united nations needing reforms, being a forcemultiplier, but you see in that generation that was torn apart by civil war and people that mean and want to do well but you see 30 year olds that don't know how to read and write with nohope. when that happens in the middle east that is a fertile ground for recruitment. so again i just want to say thank you so much for your service. thanks for being here and i will yield back. >> thank you very much. >> joaquin castro of texas. >> thank you, ambassador, for your testimony today, i think
your service during this president's tenure i think has been one of the more moderating voices on what i consider to be some of their more outlandish moves but i think also put folks likeyourself and secretary tillerson in a box sometimes. so i want to ask you a question that i've been asked many times by theforeign ministers, ambassadors, members of parliament that i'vemet with since president trump took office, which is whoreliably speaks for the president in the foreign policy space? >> so we work very much as a team and the team works strongly. we have in our nsc meetings i have a great relationship and wetalk through things with tillerson, mattis, mcmaster, we have kelly and -- i mean, everybody there. that group is the main group -- general doneunford, pompeo is another big one. >> so there is a process in place -- >> and a very organized process
in place. general mcmaster has done a fantastic job and all of our voices are heard and all of us get to help push that decision. >> do you feel as though the president takes your advice? >> i think that the president, you know, then general mcmaster has to do that. i think the president does -- he is turned out to be a very good listener in terms of the fact that he wants to learnand he appreciates different viewpoints and then he makes hisdecision. >> i guess probably the most glaring example or problematic example that i've seen was when prime minister netanyahu camefor a joint press conference and the idea of a one-state solution rather than a two-state solution was broached. i believe while secretary tillerson was on a plane somewhere was not present and then the next day you had to come back andbasically say, no, our approach is still a two-state solution and then the president later said, well, it's really whatever the parties want to do. >> right. >> so you can imagine around the world that people start wondering who is speaking for the president. >> well, and in fairness to everybody involved with that, the president has very much felt like we don't need to push what the solution is between israel and the palestinians, that we
need to have them come to the table and make those decisions. so his point was if they come up with a one state, if they come up with atwo state, whatever they come up with we're going to support and the way it got out, i agree with you, the communication was weird, but that was his intention. so we knew very much that he wasn't giving up on a two-state solution, he just was said whatever they come up with we will support and if that's a one-state solution we will support that, too. >> and then i guess a more recent example is the example of qatar where the president was essentially praising the blockade and at the same time because we have a base there and other interest we seem to be other parts of our foreign policy apparatus seem to be coming to the defense of qatar. again, there seem to be at least two heads there. what happened on that issue?
>> it's a complicated issue and, like i said, i've given my opinion. i think there is an opportunity to hit both sides and try and get more of what we want. qatar has been funding, we know that they have done a lot with hamas as we're dealing with gaza andsome other areas and so i think the president really does wantto push out isis, push out terrorism and his whole point of going and making that first visit was to say we've got to get rid of all of these threats that we have. when this came up with qatar his focus was very much on the funding they were doing for terrorists and i think that, yes, we have an air base there,yes there is some ties, but he sees the priority as cutting -- is getting rid of isis and getting rid of terrorism is right there at the top. >> and then finally because i
just have about 50 seconds left, i'm on the western hemisphere subcommittee and venezuela is a big issue, i know you've probably fielded some questions on t but what is your outlook for venezuela and for the region. >> it's worse than what we are seeing on tv. it's in a very badplace. what i had said before is we did an emergency session in the security council, they weren't happy with that is correct they felt like it needed to go to the human rights council butwe still have it. we went to the human rights council, you know, the reason they have not brought it up which they need so is because venezuela sits on the human rights council, so we blasted them on that. we were banking on oas doing something. meduro is leaning more on using military force and weapons. i think this is something that is going to get worse before it gets better and we need to watch this carefully and do something about it. >> lee zeldin. of new york. >> thank you mr. mr. chairman and thank you
ambassador for your service to our country and being here today. u.n. security council resolution 2334 was an anti-israel, anti-jewishresolution seek sooe seeking to ethnically cleanse east jerusalem. is it an accurate summary of your observations sincetaking over as ambassador that some of the nations that voted for this resolution were resentful, some were apologetic and it appears to have been u.s. led and u.s. pushed? >> i talked to all of the security council members and told them how offended and what a kick in the gut it was for americans. what i got was some felt very arm twisted by the u.s., othersthought it was the right thing to do and then -- you know, thehard part about me talking about 2334 is they keep telling me, well, it's the u.s. that wanted it. it's the u.s. that wanted it.
so it's hard for me at this point, i'm just saying there is a new administration, this is not where we want to go and so now they don't talk to me about it because they know it's such a sorry subject with us. >> and your testimony is confirmation that the u.s. was engagingin dangerous ugly back stabbing of our nations ally and israel and we abstained and when ben rhodes and others were on aconference call -- and this is in the white house records, i'm quoting verbatim -- when asked why we abstained ben rhodes thetaxpayer funded white house fiction writer says, quote, we abstained as samantha explained for a number of reasons. first,the united nations we continue to believe is a flawed venue for this issue in that it has frequently been used to single outisrael. not only was that effort u.s. led and u.s. pushed, but thenpublicly we were abstaining and we were abstaining for the reason that i just quoted from ben rhodes. and i really appreciate your
testimony to help clear the record and the history on that. >> well, and if i could just add, i respect samantha power and have -- and appreciate her service very much but that was one of our lowest points in our country with what happened because the international community when they saw that we went against an ally, it set off a terrible tone in terms of where we're going to go and just to let you know how bad it was, when sheabstained the entire security council and the audience got upand applauded and israel was sitting there with their wife watching that. think about what we just did to a friend, whathappened. you don't ever applaud in the security council. itnever happens. it happened that day. >> and i think it's clear from anyone in israel who would belistening to your testimony
here today that you have the backof america's allies, you understand that we should be strengthening our relationship with our friends, treating our adversaries as our adversaries and i'm very happy that you are there. i do want to ask about the taylor force act which has now growing bipartisan support in congress which wouldwithhold aid to the palestinian authority until it stops incitingviolence and financially rewarding terrorists, a policyotherwise known as pay to slay. can you taken any position that you are able to share with regards to what your opinion is on the act. >> so i've met with the family and yes i'm very vocal about the fact that the u.s. gives bilateral money to the palestinianauthority and we need to have a strong conversation withthem on how these martyr payments have to stop.
i think that it's one of those things by us giving money we are supporting it andwe have to make that correlation with them and let them know that that's not something we are going to accept or do going forward. >> i think it's great that you did meet with the family, taylor force, this isn't an israel, it's an american who graduated fromthe united states military. i'm going to. > eld to mr. wilson. >> we are to proud to be here with you, also a fellow resident oflexington county as a south carolinian we are so proud of your efforts to reverse the anti-israel policies. it's just what abreath of fresh air. we also want to thank you, too, as i met with you in new york last week. thank you so much. your first speech was to condemn russian aggression in ukraine, 10,000 people dead, russian aggression in the republic of georgia. we are very proud of our service and i'm at the national defense authorization act debate right now so i need to run back.
thank you. god bless you. >> thank you. and thank you for being my congressman. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> brendan boyle of pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. >> thank you. >> i wanted to raise an issue that has not been brought up i think for the two and a half hours of this hearing. yesterday we sawall around the world one of the worst cyber attacks ever tostrike, hacks targeted government ministries, banks, utilitiesand other important infrastructure and companies especially inukraine. ukraine, again, suffered the extent of that attack worse than any other country, including, by the way, the virus down systems at the sight of the former chernobyl forcingscientists to monitor radiation levels manually. i have introduced along with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, congressman fitzpatrick also from pennsylvania, we haveintroduced hr 1997 the ukraine cyber security cooperation act.
in order for the united states to help our ally in an area inwhich they are clearly vulnerable and that vulnerability has been exploited. do you think such an act would be helpful and do you believe that your role at the u.n. would be aided if the united states congress would provide leadership in helping an ally like ukraine when it comes to cyber security. >> so cyber attacks are the new ammunition that we're going tosee around the world and it continues to be worse and worse as every done three continues to see how they can make it better. i can tell you that the u.n. now is trying to become the cyber activity police and we don't want that because we don'twant china and russia deciding how the u.s. would handle cyber attacks or dictate how we handle those things going forwardso we are fighting that, but yes, i think it would be helpful if the u.s. goes and does these things it would keep the u.n. u.n. from doing it and would allow for us to continue to help.
ukraine i can't say enough about what a great ally they've been on the security council. they have just been with us on everything. >> so this is actually a good segue to the broader issue of our support for ukraine. your comments that you gave just now and others inspire a lot more confidence than the comments ofour president and the secretary of state when it comes tostanding up and supporting our ally, ukraine, turning backrussian aggression and occupation, illegal occupation of crimea and what we are continuing to do to this day in eastern ukraine which often gets
ignored in the media. i wanted to ask you about that, though, because obviously with the president, the secretary of state, our ambassador to the u.n. we have had frankly three different messages at least two differentmessages. do we the united states still stand in support and stand by the agreement that was reached am minsk? >> yes, we do. >> that you realize is contrary to what the secretary of statehas recently said, that there would be -- we would allow acertain amount of back sliding or a renegotiation of it,agreeable to both parties. how do you reconcile that? >> we continue to push the minsk agreement. we continue to -- we just renewed sanctions last week on russia's role in crimea, we are not lifting those, we're going to continue to stay strong on that so at the security council that's what i'm pushing, that's what i'm doing. >> and you would agree that we shouldn't offer any sanction relief before russia would
the fabric of the rule of law. while i have total confidence in bob mueller and his ability to conduct this investigation, i don't think that we should just be putting all of our hopes and well, that will tell us whether anything bad happened here because there is potential -- i don't know what the facts are so i'm not drawing conclusions about what he may ultimately determine. but there are facts here that should be alarming to us as a country that fall short of establishing a basis for impeachment or prosecution. >> watch the rest of sally's comments tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> sunday on q & a. >> anybody thinking in 1962 after nixon's last press conference, 10 years later he would win a 49-state landslide? and then it all came apart.
>> cleanuppist and political commentator pat buchanan. he served as a senior advisor to president nixon and discusses his book "nixon's white house wars." >> i wrote him a memo saying i think you ought to -- you're are going to have to keep the the dean tapes. the conversation with dean. i didn't think they were going to be that damaging to us. keep tapes with brezhnev and the foreign policy stuff. you really should take the rest out and burn it and shut down this special prosecutor's office before this thing grows into the monster. i didn't know it at the time but and had called in hague entertained this idea that he should burn the tapes and they said well, it will be obstruction of justice.
i didn't recommend burning subpoenaed tapes. they were his property. executive privilege existed. everybody knew it. if you simply got rid of them and said impeach or be dammed, president nixon said in his memoirs, if he had burned the tapes, that he would have survived. i think that is right. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. >> british prime minister theresa may answered questions from mens of parliament for the first time since the june 8 elections which saw her conservative party losing 13 seats in the house of commons. his is just under an hour. >> questions for the prime minister? >> thank you, mister speake